It's September again. There's already a chill in the evening air in town and soon the Leaves will begin to change color. It's the time of year when young mens thoughts turn to matter of hockey.

As such, it's about time to start posting rosters. There remains the issue of Calgary's cap non-complicance, but that's going to be part of the fun in constructing the line-ups. Who do you demote? Who do you scratch? Until the question is ultimately answered by Sutter, we're free to speculate.

Without further ado, here's how I guess (hope?) things will shake out:

Langkow Healthy Option

Tanguay - Jokinen - Iginla

Hagman - Langkow - Bourque

Glencross - Stajan - Moss

Stone - Conroy - Kotalik

(Ivanans)

Bouwmeester- Giordano

Regehr - White

Sarich - Pardy

(Pelech)

Langkow Hurt Option

Tanguay - Jokinen - Iginla

Hagman - Stajan - Bourque

Glencross - Conroy - Moss

Stone - Backlund - Kotalik

(Ivanans)

I'm loathe to put Jokinen and Jarome together again, but part of me knows that's how things are going to happen initially anyways and part of me hopes they can improve their results if someone else is taking the tough sledding. That someone else would be the Langkow unit in the first iteration, while the hard stuff would have to be spread around if Langkow is hurt. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see Conroy get a bump to Bourque's line with Langkow in the infirmary, pushing Stajan back down with Moss + Glencross and making the second line the go-to "shut down" trio again.

Potentially controversial is my decision to keep Kotalik and skate him on the 4th line. Despite the cognitive dissonance of paying someone $3M to play at the bottom of the rotation, it's likely the place where he can provide the most value: Kotalik can be completely sheltered at ES with Conroy et al and then would be free to put up results by playing on the PP and scoring the odd shoot-out marker. In addition, keep in mind that the 4th lines as I've constructed them would likely be 10 minute/night units with a good chance to mark the scoreboard, rather than the 5 minute/night detriments that many teams still opt for.

My decision to put Backlund on the 4th line in the second option will also rub some people the wrong way no doubt. However, with Langkow out, the tough assignments are going to be more spread out across the top 9 and the kid is still in the "heavy shelter" territory of his career. Backlund + Kotalik could avoid tough match-ups, take some offensive zone draws and probably cause some havoc against other 4th liners. It puts him in a position to succeed without having to skip a few grades.

No major changes on the back-end, aside from deleting Staios and adding Pelech. This gets the team under the cap and avoids the Pelech-now-waiver-eligible problem. You will also notice that Jackman doesn't show up anywhere - with the team counting 14 forwards and (with me keeping Kotalik), someone else had to take the short flight to Abbotsford. Jackman can tutor the kids on the farm for his 550k and is good bet not to be snatched up on waivers besides. It's more probable that Stone will be the odd man out should this all go down, but he's 50k cheaper and I think I prefer him anyways. Ivanans is retained because we all know he will be no matter how much I protest. He can be subbed in for Stone on the nights when the other team has a dancing bear of their own.

Potential problems? Well, this roster is just 300k under the cap as constructed. That's certainly enough to start the year, but it's skin-of-your-teeth stuff and doesn't leave much room for error or addition as the year moves along.

You are amazing RO. I've seen you be disrespectful responding to numerous post (name calling etc.). You continue to do it. Can you justify having a forward with such anemic production at this stage of his career as your second line center. I'm interested to hear.

I'm hoping Backlund has worked hard this summer so he's able to make the jump. David Perron was picked 2 spots after Backs in 2007, furthermore PK Subban who was picked in the second round that year looks like he'll be steady with the Habs this year. Wayne Simmonds was also drafted last in the 2nd round that year.

With guys drafted the same year as him looking to make a solid impact on their teams this year, I would think that Backlund should also get that chance.

In order to expand the number of knowledgeable fans around, it would behoove you to be a little more polite. Most people who come here either do believe in the type of analysis that Kent uses, or at the very least are willing to potentially buy into it. Your acerbic retorts to people you see as being ignorant are only going to help maintain the relatively small size of the group of fans who you feel you can speak to without developing a nervous twitch.

Everything would be a lot easier if everyone was on the same page all the time, but since that isn't the case and it's nice to have at least a solid base of contributors, keeping a collegial atmosphere would be swell.

Regardless of whether you think Conroy belongs on the second line (I really don't) he clearly doesn't have the cardio for it. His TOI/G has decreased predictably over the past three seasons, and his time per shift was near the NHL low last season. Even with that he looked winded most nights.

I am sure he will take some defensive zone draws with players like Bourque on his wing, but you won't (and shouldn't) see them as a regular line.

As for Jokinen, it may be wishful thinking putting him on the fourth line with Jackman and Stone, but its far south of probable. Nor would it be appropriate. The team is going to sink or swim based on the play of players like Jokinen. Like it or not.

What I don't get is how you can put together such clearly unlikely and unfavorable lines and yet still be so downright insulting to everyone else. With the usual argument "If you don't agree with me you clearly don't know anything about hockey." Well I guess you know more then anybody else, because there isn't an NHL coach alive that would put those lines on the ice.

I kept Tanguay-Jokinen-Iginla together. I am very pessimistic that Jokinen and Iginla will find chemistry. However, this is our best chance to put together a solid number 1 line. And lets face it, the Flames are going to put them together for at least 20-games.

I promoted Glencross to a 2A line with Langkow and Bourque. I think this line can do a majority of the heavey lifting and still produce. On 2B I put Hagman-Stajan-Kotalik together. Stajan and Hagman have good chemistry, and I think Kotalik is a good fit there.

On the fourth I have Stone-Conroy-Jackman. I would prefer Moss, but the salary doesn't allow it. I could keep him and it would technically fit. But I would rather have some flexibility going into the season and towards the trade deadline.

D is pretty predictable. Same as Kent's but with Pelech in the 6-slot. I think he has more upside then Pardy. That said, I expect the two of them to share the role pretty evenly unless one of them wins the position.

If Langkow is out Stajan jumps to his spot and Backlund fill's Stajan's.

That all said I still think the Flames move a D (other then Staois on a bus) and find a way to fit Backlund on the roster.

I don't know about you but a solid base of "duh-hunh, 3 goals in 63 games" contributors doesn't do anything for me.

And:

Most people who come here either do believe in the type of analysis that Kent uses, or at the very least are willing to potentially buy into it.

I don't believe that in the least. I think that FAN960 ad for FlamesNation directs a lot of the after-hours callers here. I'm sure you could go through the archives of even a couple of weeks back and find clear evidence that many (over a third at least) of posters are indeed using arguments that are in direct contradiction to Kent's way.

SinCity:

That's cute. Your opinion of Jokinen and Conroy is noted, and discarded. And it is most certainly not liked.

That Conroy, he was so winded and tired and slow-looking. Yet he still managed to play difficult icetime for the Flames and outchance the players he faced.

He's done, that Conroy. Get us a centre who will be outchanced in similar icetime, like Jokinen. Because it's appropriate to use players who will be outchanced and outscored when we're trying to win games.

So what's the point here? You don't like the team? In fact you think it's so bad you'd peg a 3 goal scorer into the second line.

There may be a fundamental problem with the way this team is built that a world of analysis (read staring at your belly) will not fix. So say that. Pretending to know the winning formula before a puck's been dropped is, forgive me, naive.

But I bet you knew that. Everyone else sucks right?

For what it's worth I hope Jackman gets a shot to contribute. The team lacks an edge (qualitatively).

Conroy is nowhere near the starting roster regardless of Langkow.
Moss is falling off the depth chart and fast.

Damn, thanks for the tip.

I don't know much about hockey, see I didn't realize that Conroy and Moss were such bad players. All I ever did was watch the games over the past few years, I mean by the way they were keeping plays alive and generating scoring chances I could have *sworn* they were good.

So, thanks. I needed that reality check.

I can see being brash and boastful has got you real far in life. I'm glad you watch lots of hockey games. I hope you enjoy them too.

Id put Staios in Abbotsford and when Langkow returns demot Kotalik, putting him on the top line and moving the lines around where needed. But that is wishful thinking. Those of us who think Staois and Kotalik wont be around are dreaming. Sutter made the move and he'll keep it. I wonder sometimes if Backlund is destined to the "A" because of his salary? Putting Stajan, a $3M man on the 3rd line, can you say FAILURE? This team has alot of "IF's". What if the team doesnt bounce back offensively? What if in game 2 Kipper breaks a leg?

That Conroy, he was so winded and tired and slow-looking. Yet he still managed to play difficult icetime for the Flames and outchance the players he faced.

He's done, that Conroy. Get us a centre who will be outchanced in similar icetime, like Jokinen. Because it's appropriate to use players who will be outchanced and outscored when we're trying to win games.

We'll surely sink, or sink, with players like Jokinen.

Yeah, that Conroy was sure an all around amazing player last season. I mean with his scoring chances being counted at 143-139 at EV (like you said) he must have amassed what, like 35-45 goals? No??? Only 3 eh. Huh, well surely he finished on the + side of +/- with all those scoring chances. No? he was -6. Oh. Well too bad that the Flames have Matt Stajan and Olli Jokinen, because they were out chanced when counted at EV. Even though they converted more of their chances into POINTS (which I am pretty sure play a fairly significant role in winning) they just didn't do it in the right way I guess.
Stajan and Jokinen may not be world beaters but neither is Conroy - He is good, and at one time was very good, but not anymore. He can still hold more than his own and that is why he will fill the roll of center on the 4TH LINE very nicely. Jokinen and Stajan can and will score more than Conroy and thus should be deployed within the top 6. Langkow playing with Kotalik and Glencross may not be the best move but if Kotalik is as bad at hockey as you say he is, wouldn't you want him playing with someone who is as good as you say he is in Langkow, with another dependable player like Glencross as well? No? Oh yeah thats right, lets just send Kotalik out there with no one else. Just literally him on the ice against the other teams 5 skaters. That way we can tear into him and bash what a terrible player he is. If we are stuck with him (like we ARE) and our GM was stubborn (like he IS) and pushed his brother/coach to PLAY him (like he WILL) wouldn't it make sense to play him on a line where you would not have to worry about his linemates?
But I forgot. I'm not here to talk about the Flames, I am here to be called a moron and called names, and read about how everyone that does not agree with you is an idiot. I certainly do not know everything there is about hockey. Compared to people like Kent I know very little. I am ok with it, thats why I use this site, because I like being able to run my (low brow) idea past people that I view as smart and care about the Flames as much as I do and see where I might be wrong. That is how you learn. I hope your brow wasn't too low to get the point I was trying to make. Just remember to breathe out your mouth. You might need a new shirt because your white collar isn't hiding your red neck very well.